The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1887-09-23

rush of correspon tents to doors. When
silence was restored. Justice Mulkey made
a few remarks. saying while not wanting
to go on record as agreeing with all the
court had said in the record. he thought il
remarkable in SO large a document there
were so few errors, and what errors there
were did not affect the case in any vital
point. Chief Justice Sheldon then an
nounced the day OF execution. aud the
buiky opinion was handed down TO the
clerk.
OTTowA, H.. Sept. 1.-THE opinion of
the court sustaius every point which was
argued by the prosecution. Il is e docu-
ment OF between forty thousand aud fiftv
thousand words. Judge Magruier was
the author. The date of the execution
was 60: decided upon until this morning
before assembling of the court. Last
night the document was finally discussed
and approved, but some OF the jui ges
were favorable for extending the date OF
the execution until january. The majo:i-
ty held that in view OF the long period
which had elapsed since the crime was
committed. justice demanded that the law
should be enforced without any more de-
lay than necessary to prepare the souls of
the prisoners for the final event. This
reasoning prevailed.
1t was preternatUrally solemn moment
In the court and al the judges We're Affect
ed with the soleninity IF the proceedings.
Within few minutes al except Sheldon
had lett the bench and had not reappeared
until adjournment for dinner. Whether
Naeruder, the Chicago member of the
court. vas selected by lot or rotation TO
write the opinion is no. known. The duty
generally falls to tie justices by rotation,
bus II is believed taat tins course was no.
followed in the present case, but that
Nagruder was selected because of his con-
Eectioa VITA the district where the crime
was committed.
Judge Muiky's remarks were as fol-
lows:
at IS not my intention to offer sep
er1te opinion. rs should have done. de-
sire 90 avail myself of this occasion to say
that while 1 concur IN the conclusion
reached. and also in the general views en-
terrell in the opinion fled, do not wish 10
lie understood as holding that the record
is free from error, for do not
think il is. I am, nevertheless. of
the opinion that none of the errors
complained of are OF such serious charac-
ter as to require = reversal OF Judgment.
In view OF the number of defendants on
trial. tie great length OF time consumed
il tine trial, the vast amount of testimony
offered aud passed upon by the court, and
the almost nUmberlsss rulings the court
was rsduired - make, the wondarment 10
me is that errors were not more numerous
and of more serious character.
''In short, after having fully examined
the record and given the questions arising
on it nv very best thought. with an earn
est and conscientious effort to do my
whole duty, l am fully satisfied that the
opinion reached vindicates the law and
does complete justice between the people
and the defendants, fully warranted by
the law and the evidence"
OTTAWA. H.. Sept. 1.-THE opinion of
She Supreme Court As delivered by Jus
tice Magruder states that the case came
before the court by writ Of error to the
Criminal Court of Cook County. The
plaintiffs in error were tried for murder
OF Matthias J. Degan, on May 1856. in
the city of Chicago and on August -.
1886 the jury found verdict against
them.
Here fellows a statement of the Fay
market tragedy, including details of the
throwing among the policemen assembled
on the square of dynamite bomb.l The
opinion says:
ut is undisputed that the bomb was
thrown. 1t is conceded that no one of the
defendants threw the bomb with his own
hands. The plaintiffs IN error are charged
with being accessories before tie fact"
The coart then proceeds to examine the
siSty-nine counts in the Indictment. Some
of the counts charge that the defendants
being present, aided. abetted and assisted
in the throwing of the bomb: others, that
not being present, aiding, abetting or as
sisting, they advised. encouraged, aided
and abe.ted such throwing. Some of the
counts charge that said defendants adj
vised, encouraged. aided and abetted one
Rudolph Schnaubelt in the preparation of
the crime: Others that they advised, en-
couraged. aided and abetted an unknown
person IN the preparation thereof.
The Illinois statute. which defines an
accessory as be who stands by and aids
and abets, and which considers such &C.
cessory as principal, to be punished ac-
cordingly, Is quoted. and then the opin-
ion goes on to state that if therefore the
defendants, advised. encouraged, aided
or abetted the killing of Degan, they are
as guilty as though they took his life
with their own hands. If any of them
stood by and aided, abetted or assisted in
the throwing of the bomb, those of them
who did so are as guilty as though they
threw il themselves.
The questions which present themselves
are these: Did the defendants have a
common purpose or design to advise, en-
courage, aid or sbet the murder of the
policeman: Did they combine together
with others with a view to carrying that
purpose or design into effect: Did they, or
either, or any of them, do such acts or
make such declarations in furtherance Of
the common purpose or design, es did
actually have the effect Of encouraging,
aiding or sbetting the crime in question:
To solve these questions, the court pro-
ceeded to make a thorough examination
OF the evidence as presented in the Criui-
nal Court in Chicago. The first part OF
the evidence examined by the Supreme
Court was that in relation to the making
of the bomb that killed began, and it was
ascerteined that there were four charac-
teristics of this bomb, viz: ]. 1t was
round. 9. 1t was exploded by means Of
onojecfiye fuse. 9. The shA Of the bomb